5 ms·

I don't really agree with that. Maybe that's true if you try to come up with a positive and universal definition of true enjoyment, but I think it's totally po

I don't really agree with that. Maybe that's true if you try to come up with a positive and universal definition of true enjoyment, but I think it's totally possible to rope off areas that are clearly not it. Those areas would include slot machines and much of social networking that resembles them. I think arguments against drawing distinctions between good and bad (e.g. "who are you to say that slot machines aren't true enjoyment") often tend to just serve to distract people from confronting real problems. I'm sure they're well-liked by the gambling industry and others who profit from those problems. Not to say that was your indention or that you were approaching this in bad faith.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago
I'm really trying to get better with my discussion here, so what in my post could have been considered arguing in "bad faith?" I'm not trying to trick anyone into something here, I'm being pretty explicit about my POV. I think it's totally possible to rope off areas that are clearly not it. My point is that I think it might be locally possible for small enough groups, but for what we're talking about with whole swaths of industries like social media not only isn't it possible, it's likely misguided.
- the-new-fella 9y ago
  He said he didn’t believe you were arguing in bad faith. If you want to know what _could_ be said to be arguing in bad faith was basically an assertion that was close to “we’ll never know what is truly good or evil because it’s so subjective”. It could be seen as attempting to escape hatch in to the “great unknowables” so you “win” the debate.
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    “we’ll never know what is truly good or evil because it’s so subjective” That's my genuine philosophical position though. Existential nihilism is a valid and well thought out epistemic position. So does that still count as bad faith? It's not rhetorical juke, it's a philosophy.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > I'm really trying to get better with my discussion here, so what in my post could have been considered arguing in "bad faith?" I'm not trying to trick anyone into something here, I'm being pretty explicit about my POV. Just to be clear, I didn't think you were arguing in bad faith. However, if I were a casino owner trying to answer criticism of slot machines, I'd go straight to the argument that "enjoyment is subjective" and "who is the critic to judge," whether I really believed it or not. That's because I'd be looking to deflect the true criticism, because I like making money from them and am unconcerned with the truth or good social policy. That would be bad faith. Those arguments basically amount to "stop searching for the truth, no criticism allowed," so I think they're usually invalid at the current level of discussion, even though they have some truth at a different level.
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    Thanks for the response. I can see how it would seem to be a dodge type of a response. Thoughtfully however, I argue that the statements you offer: "enjoyment is subjective" and "who is the critic to judge," ...are both valid positions and ones that I hold axiomatically true. So I'm genuinely saying that, although I personally find casinos irreducibly depressing from my subjective perspective, there exist people who find the same level of "happiness", "enjoyment" and "joy" - broadly defined - from slot machines as from any other activity.
    - Chaebixi 9y ago
      >> "enjoyment is subjective" and "who is the critic to judge," > ...are both valid positions and ones that I hold axiomatically true. Maybe in some cases, but I don't think it's correct axiomatically assume every repeated behavior labeled as "entertainment" is one that at least someone "enjoys." > there exist people who find the same level of "happiness", "enjoyment" and "joy" - broadly defined - from slot machines as from any other activity. I think that's an assumption, and I'm pretty skeptical of it, personally. I have not doubt there are people who genuinely enjoy other types of gambling (e.g. poker), but I doubt slot machines are anything better than an expensive distraction. They're just profitable Skinner boxes [1] that use variable-ratio positive reinforcement [2] to attempt to create a lasting habit that's resistant to "extinction" [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber#Commercial_applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber#C... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Simple_schedules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Simple_schedules [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(psychology)

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

I'm really trying to get better with my discussion here, so what in my post could have been considered arguing in "bad faith?" I'm not trying to trick anyone into something here, I'm being pretty explicit about my POV. I think it's totally possible to rope off areas that are clearly not it. My point is that I think it might be locally possible for small enough groups, but for what we're talking about with whole swaths of industries like social media not only isn't it possible, it's likely misguided.

the-new-fella 9y ago
He said he didn’t believe you were arguing in bad faith. If you want to know what _could_ be said to be arguing in bad faith was basically an assertion that was close to “we’ll never know what is truly good or evil because it’s so subjective”. It could be seen as attempting to escape hatch in to the “great unknowables” so you “win” the debate.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  “we’ll never know what is truly good or evil because it’s so subjective” That's my genuine philosophical position though. Existential nihilism is a valid and well thought out epistemic position. So does that still count as bad faith? It's not rhetorical juke, it's a philosophy.
Chaebixi 9y ago
> I'm really trying to get better with my discussion here, so what in my post could have been considered arguing in "bad faith?" I'm not trying to trick anyone into something here, I'm being pretty explicit about my POV. Just to be clear, I didn't think you were arguing in bad faith. However, if I were a casino owner trying to answer criticism of slot machines, I'd go straight to the argument that "enjoyment is subjective" and "who is the critic to judge," whether I really believed it or not. That's because I'd be looking to deflect the true criticism, because I like making money from them and am unconcerned with the truth or good social policy. That would be bad faith. Those arguments basically amount to "stop searching for the truth, no criticism allowed," so I think they're usually invalid at the current level of discussion, even though they have some truth at a different level.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  Thanks for the response. I can see how it would seem to be a dodge type of a response. Thoughtfully however, I argue that the statements you offer: "enjoyment is subjective" and "who is the critic to judge," ...are both valid positions and ones that I hold axiomatically true. So I'm genuinely saying that, although I personally find casinos irreducibly depressing from my subjective perspective, there exist people who find the same level of "happiness", "enjoyment" and "joy" - broadly defined - from slot machines as from any other activity.
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    >> "enjoyment is subjective" and "who is the critic to judge," > ...are both valid positions and ones that I hold axiomatically true. Maybe in some cases, but I don't think it's correct axiomatically assume every repeated behavior labeled as "entertainment" is one that at least someone "enjoys." > there exist people who find the same level of "happiness", "enjoyment" and "joy" - broadly defined - from slot machines as from any other activity. I think that's an assumption, and I'm pretty skeptical of it, personally. I have not doubt there are people who genuinely enjoy other types of gambling (e.g. poker), but I doubt slot machines are anything better than an expensive distraction. They're just profitable Skinner boxes [1] that use variable-ratio positive reinforcement [2] to attempt to create a lasting habit that's resistant to "extinction" [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber#Commercial_applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber#C... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Simple_schedules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Simple_schedules [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_(psychology)